Available online at www.sciencedirect.com Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 4 (2010) 83–92 6th Conference on Applications of Social Network Analysis You can’t teach understanding, you construct it: Applying social network analysis to organizational learning Michael von Kutzschenbacha*, Carl Brønnb a Lübecker Hafen-Gesellschaft, Lübeck, Germany b The Norwegian Unversity of Life Sciences, N1432 Ås, Norway Abstract Researchers in the fields of learning and social network theory have emphasized the importance of social relationships for acquiring information. However, little inquiry has been made into the influence that the structure of social relationships within an organization has on enhancing learning capability. Organizational learning and social network theory and methods are employed to develop a conceptual framework that links network structural attributes with learning characteristics in order to identify potential barriers to organizational learning. The results from case studies support the proposition that specific social network structures are associated with different barriers to organizational learning. © 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license. Keywords: Social networks; Organizational learning; Learning barriers * Corresponding author. Tel.: +49-172-15 23 713 E-mail address: [email protected] 1877-0428 © 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.07.485 84 Michael von Kutzschenbach and Carl Brønn / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 4 (2010) 83–92 1. Introduction The scope of changes occurring in the business environment has increased interest in the concepts of knowledge management and organizational learning. Organizational learning has long been an issue of both practical and theoretical concern (e.g., Argyris & Schön 1978, Mirvis 1996). Broadly defined, organizations are simply tools people use to accomplish whatever they value or desire. Organizational design is concerned with the formal tasks of differentiation, division of labor, and coordination. However, parallel to formally regulated information and communication structures; informal networks emerge in all organizations (Krackhardt & Hanson 1993). These informal interpersonal networks play an important role in organizational learning processes (Borgatti & Foster 2003, Cross & Sproull 2004, Reagans & McEvily 2003). The dynamics of the interactions between formal and informal structures generate conditions that both facilitate and limit learning processes in the organization. Learning, whether through formal or informal mechanisms, is a fundamental part of social life (Lave & Wenger 1991). However, the importance of social relationships for acquiring information and learning how to do one’s work is still undervalued and relatively unexplored (Borgatti & Cross 2003). Two general types of social network structures typically exist in organizations: entrepreneurial networks and the clique networks (Burt 1992). These two structures provide the basis for investigating the influence that the structure of organizational social relationships has on learning capability. In terms of structural hole theory, actors in entrepreneurial networks are skilled in building the interpersonal bridges that span structural holes. The advantages of bridging structural holes emerge from an individual generating a constituency for new ideas that are synthesized from the diverse information clusters to which a network entrepreneur has access. While entrepreneurial networks are outwardly-focused, the clique network is associated with social support and trust among organizational members. The more emotionally involved two individuals are with each other, the more time and effort they are willing to put forth on behalf of each other, including effort in the form of cooperative exchanges. Our purpose here was to gain insight into the role of informal structures playing in organizational learning. In order to understand the relationships between social network structures and organizational learning processes we need a framework that relates specific attributes of organizational learning with social network characteristics. In this research, organizational learning was operationalized by the concepts of “learning orientations” and “facilitating factors” (Nevis et al. 1995). 2. Organizational learning Following the publication of The Fifth Discipline (Senge 1990) interest in organizational learning has grown rapidly. As organizations are comprised of people, theories of individual learning are relevant for understanding organizational learning. Piaget (1970) argued that the key to learning lies in the mutual interaction of the process of accommodation (adapting our mental concepts based on experience in the world) and the process of assimilation (integrating our experience into existing mental concepts). Although theories of organizational learning frequently build on analogies to individual learning theories the link between individual and organizational learning is relatively unexplored. 2.1 Barriers to learning in organizations A systematic discussion of barriers to organizational learning was first presented by March and Olsen (1975) and later expanded by Kim (1993). Figure 1 presents the expanded model. Using a view of learning that highlighted the linkages between individual beliefs, individual action, organizational action, and environmental response, March and Olsen identified four potential barriers in the learning cycle (interruptions 1 - 4). Regarding the first barrier, March and Olsen theorized that a break between individual learning and individual action would result if individuals were limited by their role in the organization and thus be unable to act on their learning. They called this barrier “role-constrained learning.” A second breakdown can be found when individuals change their own behavior but the effect of these actions on organizational behavior and action is ambiguous. That is, individual learning and skill development takes place but adaptation by the organizational environment does not necessarily follow. They termed this barrier “audience learning.” The third barrier occurs when organizational members draw incorrect conclusions regarding the impact of organizational actions on the environment. They characterized such conclusions as Michael von Kutzschenbach and Carl Brønn / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 4 (2010) 83–92 85 “superstitious learning.” The fourth breakdown, “learning under ambiguity,” occurs when reasons for changes in the environment cannot be clearly identified; the connection between environmental response and individual learning is unclear. Figure 1: Barriers to organizational learning (Modified from March & Olsen 1975 and Kim 1993) The extension involved explicitly recognizing the concept of mental models and identifying three additional learning barriers (interruptions 5 - 7). When learning occurs but is forgotten or not codified, as frequently happens in crisis management, “situational learning” occurs. Individuals learn but this does not change the person’s mental models and therefore has no long-term impact; learning is situation specific. “Fragmented learning” occurs when one actor or unit learns but the organization as a whole does not. This kind of learning barrier is typical in decentralized organizations that do not have the networking capability to keep the parts connected and updated. Each unit may have the leading expert on the issue under consideration, but the organization as an institution cannot apply that expertise. The third interruption is not actually a barrier to organizational learning, as such. Rather, it is a learning strategy to bypass standard ways of doing things in order to achieve learning in one part of the organization. Kim calls this “opportunistic learning.” A well-known example can be found in the “skunkworks” concept (Bennis & Biederman 1997). 2.2 Determinants of organizational learning All organizations engage in some form of collective learning and all have formal and informal processes and structures for acquiring, sharing, and utilizing knowledge and skills (Huber 1991). Consequently, there exist a variety of ways in which organizations conduct learning activities. Nevis et al. (1995) developed an instrument that enables diagnosis of an organization’s learning capability along the dimensions of learning orientations and learning facilitating factors. The seven learning orientations represent the dimensions along which an organization’s learning takes place, as well as the content of the learning. Ten facilitating factors identify the practices or conditions that promote learning in the organization. The integrated learning model and the concepts of learning orientations and facilitating factors are useful in linking individual learning with organizational learning and for operationalizing the culture (learning orientation) and practices of organizational learning (facilitating factors). They do not, however, address the role of the social relationships among organizational members. Focusing on the role of mental models in the learning process we use an experiential learning perspective on individual learning. Organizational learning is seen to be the result of interactions between individual actors’ mental models and the organization’s shared mental model. Communication is a central element of this process and is 86 Michael von Kutzschenbach and Carl Brønn / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences